Mar 23, 2020 | Securities Class Action Archive
Hindenburg Research Alleges Undisclosed HF Foods Group Related-Party Transactions – Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Investigating Potential Securities Claims Against HF Foods
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making investors aware that on March 23, 2020, Hindenburg Research (“Hindenburg”) released a report alleging that HF Foods Group (“HF Foods” or the “Company”) (NasdaqCM: HFFG) was involved with “massive undisclosed related-party transactions.” Hindenburg Research also alleges, among other things, that HFFG’s trucking subsidiary used shareholder cash to buy “an undisclosed fleet of exotic supercars” and that HF Foods Group’s auditor “has been asleep at the wheel.”
On this news, HFFG’s stock dropped during intraday trading on March 23, 2020, thereby injuring HFFG investors.
According to Hindenburg Research (“HF Foods: 90%+ Downside on Massive Undisclosed Related-Party Transactions; Shareholder Cash Spent on Exotic Supercars & Outrageous Fundamental Valuation“):
- HF’s massive $509 million merger with food distributor B&R appears to be a blatant undisclosed related-party transaction. [HF Foods] claimed that the deal was negotiated at “arm’s length”, but [Hindenburg] found multiple documents showing that both HF and B&R were part of the same Chinese investment group for years prior to the acquisition.
- HF has transacted with at least 43 separate related-party entities in 2019 alone. Several are based out of the company’s own headquarters and appear to have no operations. [Hindenburg] visited others across the country and found red flags suggesting that these related parties are being used by insiders to extract cash from the business.
- [Hindenburg] discovered that the company’s trucking subsidiary, ostensibly set up to transport food products, appears to have also used shareholder cash to purchase an undisclosed fleet of exotic supercars including Ferraris, Porsches, and a Bentley. [Hindenburg] found photos of the Chairman’s teenage son bragging on Instagram about them being his vehicles.
- HF also directed over $2 million of shareholder cash to business entities owned by the Chairman’s teenage son, including one that bought another fleet of 7 Ferraris with vanity plates . . ..
- [Hindenburg] think[s] HF’s auditor has been asleep at the wheel. It was recently subpoenaed by the SEC for its work on iFresh (another Atlantic Acquisition SPAC mentioned above), and was lambasted in its recent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection report for a multitude of audit failures. [Some emphasis in original and emphasis added.]
HFFG investors who suffered losses are encouraged to contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], or John Kehoe, Esq, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], to discuss the securities investigation or potential legal claims.
Mar 23, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Canopy Energy California For Alleged, Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on March 23, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against Canopy Energy California in United States District Court, Central District of California.
According to the complaint, Canopy Energy California, “[i]n order to sell its products and services . . . relies on telemarketing,” and “[o]ne of the telemarketing strategies used by [Canopy Energy] involves the use of automated dialers and prerecorded messages to solicit potential customers to use its services.”
Allegedly, Canopy Energy contacted the Plaintiff’s “cellular telephone with a pre-recorded message,” in order “to sell Canopy Energy’s services to [Plaintiff] in exchange for a fee.” The complaint states that Plaintiff did not give prior express written consent to receive calls from Canopy Energy California.
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Mar 23, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against ContactAbility.com and SmartFinancial.com Insurance, LLC For Alleged Unsolicited Telemarketing Insurance Calls
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on March 20, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against ContactAbility.com LLC and SmartFinancial.com Insurance, LLC in United States District Court, Central District of California.
According to the complaint, ContactAbility.com is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SmartFinancial.com Insurance. Allegedly, the Plaintiff received from Defendants “at least 5 calls” to his cell phone and “at least 17 calls to [his] residential landline.” During a call Plaintiff received on his cell phone, after “an unnatural pause with silence before a live operator came on the line,” the Plaintiff was greeted by an operator who “identified himself as ‘Tim Morris with State Farm Insurance’ and stated that the purpose of the call was to offer an auto insurance quote.”
The Plaintiff ascertained from e-mail he received from someone identifying himself as “responsible for ‘Do-Not-Solicit issues for State Farm'” that the phone calls Plaintiff “received were made by Defendant ContactAbility, who was a ‘third-party marketing vendor’ for some State Farm agents.” Plaintiff, allegedly, did not receive a response from ContactAbility “regarding its telemarketing conduct.”
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Mar 22, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Finastra Reportedly Responds to Security Breach By Shutting Down Key Systems
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on March 20, 2020, Krebsonsecurity.com reported (“Security Breach Disrupts Fintech Firm Finastra“) that “Finastra, a company that provides a range of technology solutions to banks worldwide, said . . . it was shutting down key systems in response to a security breach discovered this morning. The company’s public statement and notice to customers does not mention the cause of the outage, but their response so far is straight out of the playbook for dealing with ransomware attacks.”
According to Krebsonsecurity.com, “. . . sources at two different U.S. financial institutions forwarded a notice they received from Finastra saying the outage was expected to disrupt certain services, particularly for clients in North America.” Additionally, Krebsonsecurity.com reported that, in a revised statement, Finastra stated that it “strongly believe[s] that the incident was the result of a ransomware attack and [does] not have any evidence that customer or employee data was accessed or exfiltrated, nor do[es] [Finastra] believe [its] clients’ networks were impacted . . ..”
Finastra’s Statement From Its COO
According to Finastra’s statement from its COO, Tom Kilroy,
[d]uring the period immediately prior to March 20th, 2020, the Finastra IT security and risk teams actively detected, through [Finastra’s] own monitoring, that a bad-actor was attempting to introduce malware into our network in what appears to have been a common ransomware attack. Unfortunately, this type of malware and criminal activity is increasingly common in today’s environment and is targeted at companies across many sectors, not only those involved in technology.
. . .
At this time, [Finastra does] not have any evidence that any customer or employee data was accessed or exfiltrated, nor do[es] [Finastra] believe [its] clients’ networks were impacted. No customers running software in their own environments are affected. [Finastra is] confident that by moving rapidly and taking these proactive measures [Finastra] successfully contained the threat, secured [its] network and protected [its] clients’ data.
Mar 21, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Filed On Behalf of Individuals Who Purchased Purell-Branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer Products, Including Gels and Foams, Arising From Defendant’s Alleged False and Misleading Labeling, Advertising and Marketing of Purell
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on March 13, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against GOJO Industries, Inc., d/b/a Purell (“Defendant”).
According to the class action complaint:
Defendant has advertised and marketed, and continues to advertise and market, that the [Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products] help prevent infection, as well as diseases such as the flu and the common cold. Defendant’s labeling and marketing of the [Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products] invokes specific statistics and other claims which imply to consumers that the statistics are backed by sound scientific evidence, when in fact, there is no sound scientific evidence to support the statistics or other claims. Therefore, the labeling and marketing of the products is misleading because they imply sound scientific support when none exists.
For example, the front label of the [Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products] prominently claims that “Purell Advanced Hand Sanitizer kills 99.99% of illness causing germs.” Defendant additionally makes claims, on the labels and elsewhere, regarding the “strength” of the Products relative to other similar products, including that they are “2X” as powerful as the products of competitors, or that one squirt of Purell Advanced Hand Sanitizer gel can do the work of two squirts of other products. These claims, by their specific nature and invocation of particular statistics (i.e., 99.99% and 2X), imply and create the impression that the claims have a reliable scientific basis. To the contrary, these claims lack a scientific basis, rendering the affirmative misrepresentations misleading.
Defendant has falsely advertised the qualities and capabilities of the [Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products] and misled consumers into purchasing the Products, which . . . were and are available directly from Defendant and from many third party retailers.
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes . . . purchased the [Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products] based on the claims made in Defendant’s false labeling, advertising and marketing. [Emphasis added.]
FDA Warning Letter Sent to Defendant
The complaint alleges that “[o]n January 17, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration . . . sent a warning letter (“Warning Letter”) to Defendant that described the [Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products] as merely topical antiseptics, which were not proven to be safe and effective in preventing infection or various diseases referenced and implied in Defendant’s false advertising.” According to the complaint, “[t]he Warning Letter specifically noted that additional representations Defendant had made about the [Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products’] effectiveness against the flu, norovirus, and ebola were unsubstantiated insofar as the FDA was not aware of any study showing that killing bacteria or virus on skin reduced the likelihood of infection or disease in users.” [Emphasis added.]
Products Manufactured By GOJO Industries, d/b/a Purell
Defendant GOJO Industries, d/b/a Purell, according to the complaint, ” . . . manufactures and distributes the [Purell-branded Advanced Hand Sanitizer products] . . . consisting primarily of ethyl alcohol, under the brand Purell, throughout the United States via third party retailers and Defendant’s website (which can also redirect consumers to third party retailers). The Products, which specifically include [‘]PURELL® Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizer Gentle & Free Foam,’ ‘PURELL® Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizer Gel,’ ‘PURELL® Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizer Foam,’ ‘PURELL® Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizer Gentle & Free Foam ES6 Starter Kit,’ and ‘PURELL® Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizer ULTRA NOURISHING™ Foam,’ are sold in various sizes.”
